Whoever they are, they're into premature hearing loss.

Tom

You should see the video of the people hanging onto the fence when a 747 takes off..now that's something.

Beave

haha check this out

and these 2 actually look to be lower than the KLM

I think that is photo shopped. My reasoning would be because: It's Rolls powered, so it has PLENTY of power to take off into the mountains. If you look at the wind sock, it's indicating about a 15 to 20 knot wind, which under normal operations, is over the max tailwind component for a 757-200 for take off. If you look at the main landing gear wheels, there is no "truck Tilt", indicating either both tilt actuators failed...or it's really sitting on the ground. Finally, look closely at the outline of the jet...you can see an outline of the complete aircraft leading one to think it's a "cut and paste" job.


David...your thoughts?

Beave

Well, I guess we can add two more airlines to the "no fly" list.

Beave

The US Airways 757 has got truck tilt AND the main nosegear doors are open (and the MLG doors appear to be opening ) so the gear has been selected up, so no, its not on the ground ! It DOES look like a photoshop image tho !

And , the height at the end of the runway, stopway, is FAR too low even for an engine failure at V1.

Personally, performance requirements permitting, I would prefer a take off out over the sea with a tailwind (max 15k) if it would avoid flying towards rising terrain which could make life difficult in the event of engine failure.

Perhaps some pilots are rather more cavalier than me , but I reached retirement without breaking anything (except a RAF jet , not my fault !) and my two airlines were absolutely adamant about stable approaches, on g/s on c/l, being MANDATORY and intentional deviation from the G/S was absolutely prohibited.

Still think the KLM shot is photoshop !

Regards, David Gladwin.

Yes David, there seems an absence of slipstream on the water or the beach, and no one is running.

Regards,

Alistair Powers

I'm with you Dave on this one! It scares me that there are people in supposedly reputable airlines like KLM who would do such scary approaches.
They've got PAPIs there! he must have been in four reds - if not four greens!!! No excuses.

I sincerely hope that KLM whole crew had an interview with their manager - without tea and biscuits.

I hope all the other pilots know that if they cross the runway end above 100' or below 50' they go around and try again.
On U-tube there is a video of a crew doing it properly which reassures me a bit.
(Landing St. Maarten from Cockpit 747)
I believe those photos and videos are real, including the 757 taking off. With that much tail wind, and if he had a low V1, it is possible and safe enough to be that low taking off out to sea.

There is a nice one on U-tube of an approach to the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong on a rainy day too. (Cockpit View POV Landing IGS13 Day Rain Boeing 747 Hong Kong) Good view of the marker boards!
Alasdair Sutherland

I looks like the first video in gordons post is the same landing of the photo in post number one. If you look closely in the video and inthe phot there is a red car parked in the street, and the plane toches down almost at the beggining of the runway.

Regards
Eduardo

Airliners.net is good about not posting photochops

I would put money on the fact that they are all real

another cool one

gents, the pics are real. I have chatted with some of the photgraphers on airliners.net and I can assure you they are the real deal. The pics posted here are the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of documented landings that low!

Maarten is an unreal place to watch landings, I have seen an hq vid and its really neat!

David,

I would think that just about as many duck under as don't, with a few touchdowns that are before the threshold of the runway. I guess that would a "brick -1" landing.

Oh, and I'm looking at the Boeing performance numbers right now for the RB-211 powered 757-200 and it states that max head wind and tail wind components are 10 knots, with a * stating that if you have the "special performance numbers" (as in you pay Boeing for them) you can LAND with up to 15 knots of a tail wind, but it's 10 for take off period. Did you guys use different numbers? Since you are retired things may have changed since then, but in the past few years Boeing has been pushing the operators (at least here in the States) to use their factory performance and operating manuals to insure that the jets are being flown procedurally the way the factory wants the jets flown.

I would estimate that the wind sock in the USAirways pic is closer to 20 knots so I still doubt the pic is legit. If it is…that guy is a complete nutter…

Beave

The first video was starring Captain Krunch before the incident, video and photos in question made the internet rounds...

The last video was Captain Krunch after the carpet dance. Six weeks off, without pay, and going about his business like a good chap now that he's been retrained and is on the radar.

My best guess anyway [:@]

[quote]ORIGINAL: bevar

David,

I would think that just about as many duck under as don't, with a few touchdowns that are before the threshold of the runway. I guess that would a "brick -1" landing.



In that case the guys are idiots. I learned heavy jet flying on the Valiant in 1964 when I was 19, and even then stable approaches were the watchword. It still is. Touch down at the correct speed in the correct place and instantly begin the stopping procedure, worked well then works just as well now and thats what Boeing teach (or certainly did when I did a 737 course in Seattle, I doubt its changed )

In all my years I have NEVER seen a captain in a heavy "duck under" and no copilot would even think of it when I was the captain. If anyone tried it on a check flight I would have instantly failed him. Its potentially dangerous and pointless as ALL runways where operations are authorised can be handled by flying the correct approach, "in the slot" and of all the airports I have operated into with BA and BY, NONE has ever required deviation from the correct landing technique because if non standard techniques such as "ducking under" WERE required they would not be authorised for use.

Sure, some runways , perhaps short, extra slippery when wet, require extra caution such as 40 flap in a 737, autobrake MAX and full reverse, to optimise landing performance, but even then landing distance is factored. I liked to get my wheel braking virtually complete BEFORE I got the the reverted rubber at the end of the runway, particularly when the runway was wet.

Yes, I know that many airlines are increasingly doing things the Boeing (or Airbus) way and why not, they design and build the things, but sometimes variations are required to suit individual airline's operations but all have to be approved by the regulatory authorities.

Anyone want proof about unstable approaches ? Study the QF accident at BKK in 2000, or the recent Garuda 737 accident in Indonesia (threshold crossed at around v-ref +70 ish or the recent TAM airbus landing accident !

Any PROFESSIONAL pilots disagree ?

Finished my coffee, you guys discuss, said my bit. .

regards,

David Gladwin.

PS the shot of the 757 climbing towards the mountains looks fine and real , telephoto lenses can easily produce such a shot and a 757, even at derate 2, climbs extremely well on 2 engines doesn't do too badly on 1 come to think of it !

Unstabilized approaches/low approaches/etc. killed more pax than cigarretes in the 60's. It was a long and hard learned lesson by many a flight operation finding flashy jets in place of the previous round motor or turboprop liner. The lesson seems to be one of those that needs to be learned again from time to time, strangely enough.

To add a touch of interesting diversion here and for the heck of it, check out this Youtube to see what happens to an unmanned F4 when you ram it into a concrete wall at 500 mph. I suppose that would quailfy as an unstabilized approach too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35x...elated&search=